Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap20195 ( October 23, 2010)

early 209west3992 ( October 10, 2010)

The disposition imposing tax on the sale right transaction example at the market price is legitimate.

(1) The appraisal value assessed by the plaintiffs is excluded from expected profit because it does not consider the usual number to be allocated after reconstruction, and the disposition in this case is legitimate at the market price, in view of the fact that there is one transaction example of the right to sell in lots, but is identical or similar to the area, location, number of floors, structure, etc. as an apartment within the same complex.

2010Nu26515 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

1.A 2.B 3.CC

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap20195 decided July 23, 2010

o April 5, 201

may 3, 2011

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the part exceeding KRW 236,09,688 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 35,473,974 of the inheritance tax imposed against the plaintiff Lee Dong-A on July 1, 2009 (the "the plaintiff's complaint and the application for amendment of the purport of the claim" seems to be a clerical error) and the part exceeding KRW 157,339,791 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 236,982,648 of each inheritance tax imposed against the plaintiff Cho Dong-A, and the part exceeding KRW 236,982,648 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 236,982,648 of the inheritance tax

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is that "No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance" is " July 1, 2009," while "No. 7 of the judgment of the court of second instance" is "No. 7,8" and "No. 6-1,200,000 won" is "No. 1,120,000 won" and the judgment of the court of second instance is dismissed as of December 21, 2006, since the heir died on July 1, 2009 of the judgment of the court of second instance, "No. 2 of the judgment of the court of second instance", "No. 1,200,000 won", "No. 1,200,000 won of the judgment of the court of second instance", "No. 200,000 won of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was the owner of the comparative apartment, and no. 1,000,000.